Judderman,, "why do I think they insisted on searching"? Well it would all be pure speculation. But a few possibles are because,,,1) they were red assed rookies. 2) they were incompetent boobs 3) theyre neo nazi wannabes. 4) they were like a lot of guys on the job that dont know when to back off. As for "electrocution" such hyperbole is misleading and counterproductive. The 26 watt 150 milliampere current does no physiologic injury. A large body of real medical research supports this. The new biphasic x 26 will produce a better result with only 5 watts. The phased current actually interupts brain muscle communication as well as causing skelatal muscle depolarization. The subject is imobile no matter what stimulants he has on board or what his mental condition is.BTW as far as our previous subject is concerned,,verbal abuse goes along withthe job,,and in this jurisdiction a peace officer on duty cannot declare himself to be the victim of a disorderly person. Peace

kman, could it also be that they had heard so many false "cast iron alibies" that they have learnt not to take anything at face value? Or that should they accept his alibi and subsequently be found to be mistaken, the generous Joe Public would demand their jobs as "incompetent boobs?" Basic "Bobbying", that's why.

Test seem to have shown that someone with a heart murmur or perhaps a pace maker can, in theory, suffer a cardiac arrest from a Tazer. The question now seems to be what constitutes an acceptable risk, not whether or not the risk exists.

Verbal abuse is not a part of the job in the UK. Nor should it be. The absolute test for a court is whether a person of reasonable firmness would have been offended, intimidated or harassed by thge comments. That person is a hypothetical one and doesn't have to be present, it is enough for a conviction that they COULD have been present.

Speaking as a civilian, the hypothetical person would have minded his own business, thus not bringing down the wrath of the person he was interrupting. A cop doesn't have that option, so it seems he'd have to get used to a little verbal abuse. Of course, I'm prejudiced, coming from a country with the legal fictions called "Free speech", and "Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure."

I'm thinking specifically of the unco operative armed man who keeps his firearm by his side but wont do as he is asked by police officers. Obviously he isn't an immediate threat, so deadly force is not yet an option, but he is potentially a serious threat, especially if he is walking away. What is an acceptable way to detain him safely?

How quickly can he transition from uncooperative to hostile? How quickly can you as a trained martial artist, recognize the threat and respond in a static training situation? How quickly do you think the average police officer can do the same thing when his life or another's is on the line?

It would be unreasonable to expect an officer to treat this scenario as less than a deadly threat as long as the man is holding the firearm. Use of pepper spray on a man holding a gun would probably not be a good idea either. Hard cover, loud verbal commands and a good sight picture at the very least would make the most sense.

In my humble opinion, I believe someone that is armed and uncooperative to be a serious threat.

Here in the U.S. we have the use of force continuem. (i.e. officer presence, verbal commands, soft empty hand, CS/OC gas, Hard empty hand, Weapons(batons), deadly force) Basically, as a police officer you are allowed to use one level above what the opponent offers. (If your a women going against a big guy, you can move up the levels faster). You can also use force if someone is resisting arrest.

There for, and as far as I know, having a gun in the UK is illegal, and the man should be arrested. Back to the use of force thing... if you've placed him under arrest, and he's resisting arrest, and he's posing a deadly threat you should be able to use what ever force is necessary.

I agree with you both, but the problem remains of how to deal with an unco-operative detainee with a firearm. Taking the absolute standard as laid down by the continuum of force, the person is only a potential threat and so should be approached by an armed officer. Clearly that is unrealistic.

I'm not an LEO so I don't know common regulations and such. I can only rely on what makes sense to me as a reasonably intelligent person. If the person has a firearm,and refuses to drop it, then it has to be looked at as an attack with deadly force against the LEO. Thus, the LEO is entitled to use deadly force. In other words...shoot the bastard. Don't bother with a less than deadly option if it has any risk for the LEO. The cop shouldn't have to sacrifice his/her life for the sake of being gentle.

Of course, I'm assuming the LEO has given the person enough time to comply. Shouting "drop it" and then shooting 0.5 seconds later is not appropriate. But, if the LEO has been giving orders for 20 seconds without result then that's that.

This is one of the reasons all British cops should have pistols.

Of course, if you really want to limit damage to perpetrator, call for a bunch of guys with those bullet proof riot shields. Then charge the guy, knock him to the ground, and grapple the weapon away from him

To address the scenario of an uncooperative man with a gun,,, He's fair game to be shot. he can raise that weapon and shoot in the blink of an eye. Reaction time alone would preclude you from doing anything before he got the shot off. We've gamed this out with unloaded weapons and paintball and there's no doubt that the bad guy gets the first shot. Then there's the matter of how long it would take the officers shot to incapacitate him. (Biiiiiig subject) only a central nervous system hit would stand a ghost of a chance. All that having been said one doesnt HAVE to shoot. If he's alone and not an imediate danger to anyone other than himself you could always back way up and wait for help and further developments.The situation might not tolerate that. As in being indoors or having an innocent 3rd person in close proximity.As for tasers? a good option. And CATO they do not and cannot cause a heart attack in anyone. That story is being circulated by an anti cop civil liberties group and has no veracity. Taser international has contracted major medical research facilties to study and uncover any vulnerabilities. They WANT to know what the weapon can and cannot do. They'd be foolish to conceal a liability and market a dangerous weapon when they knew better. The wattage has been carefully tuned to be below cardiac threshold. The newer ones will work even better with less power due to improved voltage phase characteristics.Now Please compare and contrast the terms "cast iron alibi" and "false cast iron alibi"

They did not know he had an alibi because he refused to answer questions because he hates f*****ng pigs

The driver of a car of the same make and model as his with a very similar registration (licence plate) was involved in a serious crime.The police asked if they could search his car and told him why. when he refused to answer questions or allow a search of his car, they had no cholice other than to arrest him.Sharon

Cato, What is the hurry? Set up a perimiter, evacuate civilians. Bring in the boys with guns, and probably some rubber or bean bag munitions as well. Have a negotiater or what not talk the guy down. You get to go have a cuppa and get out of the line of fire. Good times! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG] Seriously this seems a resonable answer in your scenario. The problem in the States with simmiler situations, isthe lack of availability and training with progectial non leathals. and when from time to time the nut bar wants to end it all with a warm gun local LE are more than glad to use the best resorce they have, side arms shot gun etc. instead of the story book ending ("Hand me the gun, son everything's gonna be o.k")